Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/

Joseph Touch <> Fri, 27 March 2020 16:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8EFA3A0D08 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p0gE7Y1km65Y for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04A473A0DFF for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50174F40721; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFC48F40721 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0VgRmQi33hYG for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8695F40720 for <>; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=default; h=To:References:Message-Id:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To: From:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=1adxOI9EnevFlty5aIrq4Th476f1Bd7EKctT+aJOfpU=; b=sPs7MnkIgbkFB4n/jpM3SeTg/ bFk516HOX87nUwLrlIseH3+XPg0kxBuJiZ55/UVCgY+sq40JaQ1OYOyLQI1PA9oVtxGJQB9Cf49Qx CvAHmpDnUtKgpB1iNAQUYTufgx8njMEsrf1FhBYXjU4rTOY3/QKiMQGsc0t/wbgrfK1M6wTdr5cmd vA/6PGEURtdH4qQQ1Kg9yFZcvTNxN/7WO0Waow2GYzUpTbf1YFkzy+hNbmBdU7OJt2cnWCUgGNWXR 3mlXzKu/DAveBky7pFwvuL10TW53od1NtKiKnhKZH8t/Q1T3xBr4FsVxhmrXf3Twq4xNgycXODmNW ViRsHY6fg==;
Received: from ([]:61604 helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from <>) id 1jHs6E-003xYt-4e; Fri, 27 Mar 2020 12:44:54 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
From: Joseph Touch <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2020 09:44:48 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: Suresh Krishnan <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname -
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain -
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain -
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: authenticated_id:
X-From-Rewrite: unmodified, already matched
Subject: Re: [rfc-i] draft-kuehlewind-update-tag/
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Cc: "" <>, Toerless Eckert <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2517240049313625342=="
Sender: "rfc-interest" <>

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 9:17 AM, Suresh Krishnan <> wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>> ...
>> Really? So basically outgoing IESG members get to throw “work bombs” on the incoming IESG and the rest of us?
> Huh? There is a reason there are two outgoing IESG members writing this. 
> 1) We have seen this issue come up several times there is an Updates tag in a draft up for IESG eval during our 4 year term

"Several times” is a poor threshold for a wide-ranging process update.

> 2) Mirja and I picked up this task exactly because we were outgoing and did not want this to be seen as pushed by the IESG on the community.

Then you needed to wait until you were out of office, IMHO. 

Above, you point out that this is being written because of your context as IESG members. You can’t (IMO) believably claim that and then claim this is individual at the same time.

>> ...
>> How about at least showing us a few examples where it actually matters AND would be unambiguous to determine.
> i agree with you that this is a reasonable ask. Your original ask of going through *ALL* current updates was (IMHO) not, and that is what I think Brian was responding to.

Let me be a little more specific in the range of “a few” to “all”. How about enough to warrant this sort of change?

1) how many times did this come up vs other contentious issues at the IESG level?
	the IESG is inherently contentious - being across many areas of expertise and often seeing issues late in the development process when they’re outside their area

2) is there any metric of success here?
	the IESG is never going to “not” need to debate issues such as this; that is their role


rfc-interest mailing list